Derrick Rose rape accusations raise issues of consent

[jicka]

Well with the way it is playing out now - to be safe you'd better film the whole encounter, so that you have proof that she was into it.
Or get a written consent

Yea you may as well record it on your phone too

[Kapadons]

never understood the big deal with rape. Oh no, you had a penis inside you. The fucking horror. 2 weeks ago you had a penis inside you and you loved It.

Sex isn't that big of a deal. It's just sex. The issue is people attach all these emotions and feelings around sex. It's in your DNA to fuck. You think the wildebeast gets pissed that bull from the other herd rolls up and dumps some cum into her ?

[Garnier Fructis]

Great, so then I still want to know who is raping who when two drunk people just start banging each other without 'consent' being given in a state of right mind.

And now we arrive at one reason why the laws are intentionally made vague: because these scenarios have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

If it's just two people getting drunk at a party, there's no books to throw at anybody. If a person gets another drunk planning to have sex with them and then imbibes alcohol themselves, then there were still actions that constituted rape even though both were drunk. These aren't even unlikely scenarios, and are just a few among many.

The answer to your question is 'it depends' because context matters.

[spinner981]

See, this is the semantic nonsense that I meant.

It's written in fairly clear English. If you can't understand what's being said, that's your issue, not mine. Yes, a lot of this stuff is somewhat subjective, but again, this is why we have courts. And juries. That's literally their purpose; to figure out what the law means to a reasonable, average person, and make a decision based on that.

Then why are you even in this thread if you don't want to discuss anything? You should have just posted "Let the jury decide" and ended with that. If you don't want to engage in the actual discussion of the issue, then you are just flaming when you complain about other people actually engaging in discussion.

Her testimony is evidence, so you can just drop that claim that there's "no evidence" right off.

Sure, and unless the accused pleads guilty his testimony is just as sufficient of evidence to the contrary. One accusation and one denial. Why is the accusation favored over the denial in an 'innocent until proven guilty' court system?

[Merkava]

A lawyer recently said that New York Knicks guard Derrick Rose, who is accused in a civil lawsuit of raping a woman, doesn’t understand the meaning of consent. Do most people know what sexual consent is?

As a lifelong Bulls fan, I can't tell you how happy I am to read to bolded portion.

[spinner981]

And now we arrive at one reason why the laws are intentionally made vague: because these scenarios have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

If it's just two people getting drunk at a party, there's no books to throw at anybody. If a person gets another drunk planning to have sex with them and then imbibes alcohol themselves, then there were still actions that constituted rape even though both were drunk. These aren't even unlikely scenarios, and are just a few among many.

The answer to your question is 'it depends' because context matters.

Then what is the difference between intentionally trying to get somebody drunk (in which said person consents to be drunk) in order to be given consent to have sex and having sex with somebody who is drunk after they gave consent without such a premeditation?

If we don't want to discuss anything, and instead just throw our hands in the air and conclude that everything about consent is entirely subjective and entirely subject to the context of the situation with no consistent basis, that's fine. But then why does this thread even exist?

[Garnier Fructis]

What are you saying here? That if somebody has sex with somebody who is drunk, while drunk themselves, that they are to be convicted of rape because they should have known better before ingesting alcohol? At least in the case of drunk driving you give somebody your keys. What do you suggest for sex? Obligatory chastity belts that require keys to remove for all drinking outings?

No, I'm saying people shouldn't put themselves in positions to get in trouble. That you can conjure up boundary cases, which are why the law is vague, doesn't mean we should scrap the whole thing and be fine with all the non-ambiguous cases.

[spinner981]

No, I'm saying people shouldn't put themselves in positions to get in trouble. That you can conjure up boundary cases, which are why the law is vague, doesn't mean we should scrap the whole thing and be fine with all the non-ambiguous cases.

Isn't that a form of 'victim blaming' though? Saying that a person is liable for something happening to them if they place themselves into a situation where those things happen more often than normal?

[Endus]

Then why are you even in this thread if you don't want to discuss anything? You should have just posted "Let the jury decide" and ended with that. If you don't want to engage in the actual discussion of the issue, then you are just flaming when you complain about other people actually engaging in discussion.

I'm totally willing to engage in honest discussion. If you're going to try and engage in a semantics debate about the definitions of basic words, then that's not an honest discussion. Consent isn't that complicated, and feigning confusion is not "discussion".

Sure, and unless the accused pleads guilty his testimony is just as sufficient of evidence to the contrary. One accusation and one denial. Why is the accusation favored over the denial in an 'innocent until proven guilty' court system?

Never said the accused's testimony wasn't evidence.

And his accuser's testimony isn't automatically "favored". What actually happens, is both are considered, and the jury will either determine that one testimony is believable and the other not, and rule accordingly, or they will be unable to make such a determination in their estimation beyond the measure of reasonable doubt, and they will be obliged to rule "not guilty".

You keep making up stuff I never said.

[Tulune]

never understood the big deal with rape. Oh no, you had a penis inside you. The fucking horror. 2 weeks ago you had a penis inside you and you loved It.

Sex isn't that big of a deal. It's just sex. The issue is people attach all these emotions and feelings around sex. It's in your DNA to fuck. You think the wildebeast gets pissed that bull from the other herd rolls up and dumps some cum into her ?

I seriously hope you are kidding. Rape isn't just a penis inside you, and not only women get raped.

[Garnier Fructis]

Then what is the difference between intentionally trying to get somebody drunk (in which said person consents to be drunk) in order to be given consent to have sex and having sex with somebody who is drunk after they gave consent without such a premeditation?

If we don't want to discuss anything, and instead just throw our hands in the air and conclude that everything about consent is entirely subjective and entirely subject to the context of the situation with no consistent basis, that's fine. But then why does this thread even exist?

Context and intent matter. That's the difference.

I never said it was entirely subjective. There is subjectivity, and you cannot remove that from law and the practice of law because we can't read minds and observe the past.

And I am having a discussion about it, right now. If pointing out that your scenario is missing critical context that would be important in a courtroom is throwing my hands in the air, well that's not my problem.

[spinner981]

I'm totally willing to engage in honest discussion. If you're going to try and engage in a semantics debate about the definitions of basic words, then that's not an honest discussion. Consent isn't that complicated, and feigning confusion is not "discussion".

I don't think I've ever seen you desire to engage in honest discussion. An honest discussion would be about the definitions of these words and actions. You yourself said that the jury decides, and so I am wanting to have a discussion on why some cases are or are not consensual. But you refuse to have these discussions, labeling any sort of discussion as a 'discussion of semantics' and then reference 'honest discussion' without even referencing what such a discussion would entail just to flame more than you already have.

Never said the accused's testimony wasn't evidence.

And his accuser's testimony isn't automatically "favored". What actually happens, is both are considered, and the jury will either determine that one testimony is believable and the other not, and rule accordingly, or they will be unable to make such a determination in their estimation beyond the measure of reasonable doubt, and they will be obliged to rule "not guilty".

You keep making up stuff I never said.

It's not my fault you are vague and then get mad at people when they try to draw any meaning whatsoever from your posts. I see no reason why a mere accusation should ever serve as the sole reasoning to convict a person of rape in the face of any denial from the accused that itself doesn't unintentionally condemn the accused.

[hydrium]

See, this is the semantic nonsense that I meant.

It's written in fairly clear English. If you can't understand what's being said, that's your issue, not mine. Yes, a lot of this stuff is somewhat subjective, but again, this is why we have courts. And juries. That's literally their purpose; to figure out what the law means to a reasonable, average person, and make a decision based on that.



Her testimony is evidence, so you can just drop that claim that there's "no evidence" right off.

Laws cannot be subjective, as a part of the due process clause of the 14th amendment laws must be definitive in what they prohibit so people can be held accountable when they choose to break it.

[Cerus]

An evil man named Al-i-mony.

I didn't say cheat. I said marriage doesn't necessarily mean one partner for life.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, yes it would be, but at least you wouldnt have to deal with all this "i did not consent, i was drunk lulz, yolo" bullshit

You're implying gays don't rape?

[spinner981]

Context and intent matter. That's the difference.

I never said it was entirely subjective. There is subjectivity, and you cannot remove that from law and the practice of law because we can't read minds and observe the past.

And I am having a discussion about it, right now. If pointing out that your scenario is missing critical context that would be important in a courtroom is throwing my hands in the air, well that's not my problem.

First of all, how would intent matter? If the same exact actions take place in a situation, with the state of mind of both parties remaining constant (ie: drunk, high, not drunk, not high, etc.) are you saying that the same situation could be both rape and not rape depending on the mere intent of the alleged rapist, regardless of whether or not consent is given?

Yes, context matters, otherwise the situation wouldn't exist. But I don't feel comfortable simply allowing a jury to make such drastically different or significant judgement calls because our current definition of legal 'rape' and legal 'consent' are severely vague.

[Kraenen]

So instead of focusing on 99% of rapes you want to focus on the <1%?

How do we know @Tennisace isn't a WHO/Scienctifically-proven rapist?

[Garnier Fructis]

Isn't that a form of 'victim blaming' though? Saying that a person is liable for something happening to them if they place themselves into a situation where those things happen more often than normal?

Alright, let me be more specific for you. If you're about do some shady shit like bang a person when you aren't drunk yourself, then you put yourself in a position to get in trouble and it's your own fault if you do.

That's what I had in mind. What you've had in mind this whole time is 'what if its two drunk people', which I'm just going to say again: context.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all, how would intent matter? If the same exact actions take place in a situation, with the state of mind of both parties remaining constant (ie: drunk, high, not drunk, not high, etc.) are you saying that the same situation could be both rape and not rape depending on the mere intent of the alleged rapist, regardless of whether or not consent is given?

Yes, context matters, otherwise the situation wouldn't exist. But I don't feel comfortable simply allowing a jury to make such drastically different or significant judgement calls because our current definition of legal 'rape' and legal 'consent' are severely vague.

I'm saying that they aren't even the same situation. We already classify a ton of crimes differently and enact different punishments where the only differentiating factor is intent, this should not be as hard of a concept as it apparently is right now.

[spinner981]

Alright, let me be more specific for you. If you're about do some shady shit like bang a person when you aren't drunk yourself, then you put yourself in a position to get in trouble and it's your own fault if you do.

That's what I had in mind. What you've had in mind this whole time is 'what if its two drunk people', which I'm just going to say again: context.

And what if this drunk person gives consent while you yourself are not drunk?

I'm saying that they aren't even the same situation. We already classify a ton of crimes differently and enact different punishments where the only differentiating factor is intent, this should not be as hard of a concept as it apparently is right now.

Surely there is a difference between deliberate and accidental actions, but when it boils down to only deliberate actions why should intent be a factor?

[Cerus]

The difficulty of proving it was rape does not make it not-rape. Nor does this have anything to do with the presumption of innocence. "Presumption of innocence" means you get a trial before you're convicted and sentenced, rather than having to sue for your release and having to prove your innocence to do so. It does not mean you're immune from having charges filed.

And her testimony, however much you might not like this, is "evidence". And it can be enough to convict, if yours is not consistent nor realistic.

Oh Endus - you really should stick to Canadian matters. Here in the US it's innocent until proven guilty. That is the cornerstone of the American justice system. It's on the state to prove guilt. Testimony without evidence isn't evidence of anything. A he said she said ends with acquittal without any corroborating witnesses or physical evidence.

[breadisfunny]

how do we know @tennisace isn't a who/scienctifically-proven rapist?

how dare you besmirch tennisace like that?! tennisace is an upstanding citizen. i demand you cease this libel and slander at once!