Germany refines the law concerning unwanted sexual contact.

[Slant]

It's fine in concept, in practise this change does nothing in almost all cases since it's usually impossible to verify verbal cues.

Hum, I wouldn't say that. In cases like these the judge takes the reputation of the accused into account. If he trashed the apartment 10 times before that evening and the one night she was found to have his semen in her vagina the apartment is not trashed, chances are he got to her... I can absolutely see a judge ruling in her favour in those cases if the evidence supports her side of the story.

[lonely zergling]

I think you're right. For normal people like you and me, nothing much will change. Germany was never hung up on the idea that you have to explicitely hand in a written no-consent form in triple copy for your non-consent to be clear. This law opens up the crime status for a wider range of cases that cropped up recently and refined the definitions. That's how proper lawmaking works. And I think it's a good step into the right direction. It should give victims more protection without actually violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

- - - Updated - - -



This is true. The very nature of these crimes almost always rule out witnesses and lead to evidence based cases, which makes the whole area so difficult to judge. It all ends up with telling girls to be more careful. Something that triggers the uninformed into saying "that's victim blaming!"

Well, yeah, maybe it is... but in legal practicality, that's the best protection they have. Because abandoning constitutional principles ain't gonna happen.

But atleast we now have a "mitgegangen mitgefangen"- paragraph!

"Wer eine Straftat dadurch fördert, dass er sich an einer Personengruppe beteiligt, die eine andere Person zur Begehung einer Straftat an ihr bedrängt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft""

[Ravenblade]

No, it doesn't. We're not California where you have to ask every 20 second if she's okay with you fucking the living daylight out of her.

For normal people everything will stay the same. What does get addressed by this is sneaky people that read a criminal text and think "Oh, so if I don't harm her physically, it'll be okay.. let's see, she wanted that promotion..."

Yes, for normal people it won't change a thing (naturally, since we are not talking about taxes) but on the other hand it may lead to a sudden increase in reported cases and false accusations, not sure what of both will be more likely.

[Slant]

But atleast we now have a "mitgegangen mitgefangen"- paragraph!

Uhhh, do we? Isn't that one still up for debate? If not, I can see judges interpreting that in the narrowest of manners. I know politicians freaked out over the idea that someone could be trialed and sentenced for sexual assault simply for being in a group that groped women at a party. That's the one actual controversial bit in the text.

Not surprised the BBC didn't pick that one up and instead focused on the typical American problem of finding out just how much no really means no... or if you actually need a repeated yes every 20 seconds... :P

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, for normal people it won't change a thing (naturally, since we are not talking about taxes) but on the other hand it may lead to a sudden increase in reported cases and false accusation, not sure what of both will be more likely.

I'm not so sure about false accusations... an increase in reported cases is generally a good thing, it would mean this new law did its job. False accusations, we'll see. Trials are there to find out if something is illegal or not. Falsely accusing someone is usually not a bad thing, either. Most of false accused cases get dismissed rather easily or prevented outright by smart lawyers explaining the paragraph to their clients properly before it even comes to a case trial.

[Azadina]

Lie detectors exist. Have both the victim and accused take one a few times. The one caught lying gets 3 times the original sentence then. Problem solved.

[lonely zergling]

Yes, for normal people it won't change a thing (naturally, since we are not talking about taxes) but on the other hand it may lead to a sudden increase in reported cases and false accusation, not sure what of both will be more likely.

I like the potential example of the muslim male that doesnt want to shake hands with a female teacher. If the woman forces the shake hands it could be seen as a sexual assault with the new law. He didnt want to get touched by a member of the opposite sex.

[Ryme]

Lie detectors exist. Have both the victim and accused take one a few times. The one caught lying gets 3 times the original sentence then. Problem solved.

Lie detectors have significant error rates, though.

[Slant]

Lie detectors exist. Have both the victim and accused take one a few times. The one caught lying gets 3 times the original sentence then. Problem solved.

Germany is a civilised country, we don't put much faith in faulty technology like lie detectors.

- - - Updated - - -

I like the potential example of the muslim male that doesnt want to shake hands with a female teacher. If the woman forces the shake hands it could be seen as a sexual assault with the new law. He didnt want to get touched by a member of the opposite sex.

And he'd be right too. Where you in the German army at some point? Whenever they adjust your uniform, they ask "Can I touch you?"

I found it highly amusing. Laws sometimes create the funniest of situations. And try not to laugh at your NCO when he does that, or you'll do laps for sure...

[Azadina]

Lie detectors have significant error rates, though.

Not as significant as letting 99 out of 100 rapists walk off.

[Cosmic Janitor]

By the way, the use of "Gewalt" (translated to "force") in german law includes any kind of body contact. So even just touching a person or holding them is a use of force.

Do you have a link to that? I sadly don't own a StGB and the definitions I found online were a bit misleading. I can't find a proper definition in the BGB either.

[Ryme]

Not as significant as letting 99 out of 100 rapists walk off.

Depends on where you place your values, I guess.

[Azadina]

Depends on where you place your values, I guess.

Not letting criminals commit crime with zero consequences for one.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Lie detectors exist. Have both the victim and accused take one a few times. The one caught lying gets 3 times the original sentence then. Problem solved.

Afaik they have never been used in German law for the very obvious reason of being faulty.

[Slant]

Do you have a link to that? I sadly don't own a StGB and the definitions I found online were a bit misleading. I can't find a proper definition in the BGB either.

The BGB wouldn't have that kind of definition. I'm pretty certain you'll find that kind of definition in commentaries only. Go to your local library and look up "beck" they have a commentary of the StGB which contains that definition if you look up this paragraph.

The short version goes something like this: "Gewalt ist der (zumindest auch) physisch vermittelte Zwang zur Überwindung eines geleisteten oder erwarteten Widerstandes."

English: Force is the (at least also) physically transmitted constraint to overcome an existing or expected resistance.

- - - Updated - - -

Not letting criminals commit crime with zero consequences for one.

Lynch mob mentality. Your goal of getting every last one of the criminals supercedes the interest to avoid incarcerating innocent people. That won't happen in Germany, it's not conforming to our constitutional standards.

[Azadina]

Afaik they have never been used in German law for the very obvious reason of being faulty.

How much more faulty can anything imaginable be, than the current method of 99% rapists and sexual assaulters walking free?

Lynch mob mentality. Your goal of getting every last one of the criminals supercedes the interest to avoid incarcerating innocent people. That won't happen in Germany, it's not conforming to our constitutional standards.

I'm sure you can explain to me why terrorist organizations aren't left alone? Hunting them kills innocents.

[Slant]

Afaik they have never been used in German law for the very obvious reason of being faulty.

I'm also not aware of them ever being used. Which doesn't mean much, tbh.

[lonely zergling]

Not letting criminals commit crime with zero consequences for one.

Well, sorry, we have the innocent until proven guilty standard here (we are not north korea). Using proven unsafe technology to decide if someone is guilty is not something a state of law does.

I recommend you to stop looking at obviously biased rainn and other feminist "statistics".

[Deleted]

Not letting criminals commit crime with zero consequences for one.

I like not wrongly accusing and punishing innocents.

[lonely zergling]

I'm sure you can explain to me why terrorist organizations aren't left alone? Hunting them kills innocents.

Not in germany though. We dont bomb düsseldorf just because there may be some terrorist cells...

Even alleged future terrorists get fair trials!

[Cosmic Janitor]

The BGB wouldn't have that kind of definition. I'm pretty certain you'll find that kind of definition in commentaries only. Go to your local library and look up "beck" they have a commentary of the StGB which contains that definition if you look up this paragraph.

The short version goes something like this: "Gewalt ist der (zumindest auch) physisch vermittelte Zwang zur Überwindung eines geleisteten oder erwarteten Widerstandes."

English: Force is the (at least) physically transmitted constraint to overcome an existing or expected resistance.

- - - Updated - - -



Lynch mob mentality. Your goal of getting every last one of the criminals supercedes the interest to avoid incarcerating innocent people. That won't happen in Germany, it's not conforming to our constitutional standards.

I've seen some definitions that include a "vergeistigte Gewaltbegriff" (spiritualized force definition), where they pretty much include abusing status or something like that. Not going to my library for an internet debate, you crazy?