Quote:
Originally Posted by schteve_d
I suppose while we sit around the computer that may be true, but let me suggest this: If you ever find yourself in a position with another person that you are about to have intimate relations with, and you need to debate with yourself or someone else whether or not you have consent, or the level of that consent, that you back the eff off and re-evaluate what you are doing or what you are about to do. If you don't do that, then you just may be a very scummy person.
I would hope this is common sense for anyone of either sex.
If you are not sure, then you had better assume that you don't have consent and if you proceed, then I have no sympathy for your repercussions.
|
In my opinion, the criminal law of sexual assault in Canada is very poorly suited to ensuring just outcomes. There have been very positive developments in dispelling so-called 'rape myths' and in protecting victims being unduly 'attacked' in court, but the fact remains for all parties that a great many real-life situations may...or may not...be seen as criminal offences when assessed after the fact in the artificial arena of the courtroom. If it is not clear in court what the boundaries are it is not hard to see how it can be unclear in the heat of the moment.
Kissing your sleeping spouse to wake them up in the morning can technically be a criminal sexual assault in Canada...since the fact he or she is sleeping means they cannot consent.
However, a person being subjected to prolonged unwanted sexual intercourse does not automatically mean a crime is committed at all because an honest but mistaken belief in consent is a complete defence.
(That's right, BOTH the accuser and the accused can be telling the truth...and there be BOTH no consent to sexual acts AND no criminal monster).
Only 4 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada was divided on whether a man committed any crime (6 said guilty 3 said not) when engaging in sexual asphyxiation with his long-time common law partner. The Ontario Court of Appeal was also not unanimous in deciding whether the trial judge got it right. So, there was complete disagreement among 13 highly respected legally trained judges - none of whom were out to victimize women or cheer on rapists.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc.../7942/index.do
The over-generalizations in this thread are both shocking and in my view part of an ongoing problem - not a solution.
Statistics about how often a woman makes a false claim or how often a pro athlete refuses to take "no" for an answer are completely meaningless to the actual human beings at the centre of this incident.
How ironic that the very unfair historical attack on a woman's prior reputation that used to be ordinary in a sexual assault defence has somehow now become appropriate in the minds of some to apply to a presumed innocent person who as of yet is not even accused of a crime by authorities.
For those who doubt false allegations happen, I have personally defended a client who was subjected to one by a stepdaughter. It destroyed him and his family. And he was innocent (not just because of the legal standard of proof but because HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING).
In June of this year the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a judgment denying the accused costs from the Crown in a case where the trial judge found "the three complainants and their mother had made false complaints to the police and lied to the court" and that the Crown had run a "critically weak" case relying on the "utterly suspect" evidence of a "vindictive liar".
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc...&resultIndex=1
Unless any of you were there, you know absolutely nothing about what Kane or the complainant did or didn't do. No speculation masquerading as inherent morality can change that fact.
And to attempt to turn the thread back to a discussion actually related to anything about the Kane story, none of the discussion of Canadian sex assault law matters (including my own above).
A quick search of New York State sexual assault law reveals massive differences including that implied consent is a defence to some charges, and corroborating evidence other than the evidence of the complainant is required before a conviction can result in situations where lack of consent is alleged due to mental incapacity such as from drugs or alcohol.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.10
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/P...E/H/130/130.16
There really is nothing to talk about here until some facts are reported...and even then...again speaking from experience...the "facts" don't exist until the verdict is rendered by a judge or jury (a.k.a. the trier of fact).