Rate the MPC's new definition of rape/sexual assault:
| Razzmatazz codepig | 06/28/15 | | Emerald Property | 06/28/15 | | Slap-happy jet piazza | 06/29/15 | | electric forum | 06/29/15 | | Razzle place of business church building | 06/28/15 | | burgundy massive twinkling uncleanness selfie | 06/28/15 | | Transparent odious keepsake machete | 06/28/15 | | burgundy massive twinkling uncleanness selfie | 06/28/15 | | Transparent odious keepsake machete | 06/28/15 | | burgundy massive twinkling uncleanness selfie | 06/28/15 | | Transparent odious keepsake machete | 06/28/15 | | laughsome walnut karate | 06/28/15 | | Transparent odious keepsake machete | 06/28/15 | | Comical Fuchsia Rigpig | 06/28/15 | | aromatic dopamine dysfunction | 06/29/15 | | tantric ruddy immigrant | 06/29/15 | | Razzmatazz codepig | 06/29/15 | | Razzmatazz codepig | 06/29/15 | | Alcoholic organic girlfriend blood rage | 06/29/15 | | Topaz mexican public bath | 06/29/15 | | Alcoholic organic girlfriend blood rage | 06/29/15 | | Slap-happy jet piazza | 06/29/15 | | adventurous bistre locale preventive strike | 06/29/15 | | motley aquamarine bbw | 06/29/15 | | motley aquamarine bbw | 06/29/15 | | frisky fat ankles university | 06/29/15 | | buff tattoo | 06/30/15 | | Primrose area | 06/29/15 | | charcoal church | 06/29/15 | | Curious wagecucks box office | 06/29/15 | | boyish sick generalized bond institution | 06/29/15 | | Curious wagecucks box office | 06/29/15 | | Razzmatazz codepig | 06/29/15 | | jade goal in life | 06/29/15 | | Topaz mexican public bath | 06/29/15 | | jade goal in life | 06/29/15 | | motley aquamarine bbw | 06/29/15 | | exhilarant lake national security agency | 06/29/15 | | motley aquamarine bbw | 06/29/15 | | Citrine 180 school cafeteria | 06/29/15 | | exhilarant lake national security agency | 06/29/15 | | ebony indirect expression | 06/30/15 | | motley aquamarine bbw | 06/30/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 28th, 2015 9:43 PM Author: Razzmatazz codepig
LOL@ LAW PROFESSORS WHAT A FUCKING DISEASE
Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).
Far-fetched? Not as the draft is written. The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts. The first is affirmative consent. The second is an enlarged definition of criminal sexual contact that would include the touching of any body part, clothed or unclothed, with sexual gratification in mind. As the authors of the model law explain: “Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.” So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal. “With passivity expressly disallowed as consent,” the memo says, “the initiator quickly runs up a string of offenses with increasingly more severe penalties to be listed touch by touch and kiss by kiss in the criminal complaint.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-regulating-sex.html
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922053&forum_id=2#28219664)
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 9:05 AM Author: Slap-happy jet piazza
THIS IS WHY ProsBros are the
BEST
LAST
DEFENSE
against bullshit cases.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922053&forum_id=2#28221837) |
Date: June 29th, 2015 9:30 AM Author: Curious wagecucks box office
Remember when Bill Clinton-era libs were the party of freedom, liberation and fun?
Now Obama-era libs are puritanical tyrants and worse than the Christian right. They literally want to regulate sex.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922053&forum_id=2#28221898) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2015 4:53 PM Author: motley aquamarine bbw
Oh, without a doubt. In the sense of the standard of proof, "better a thousand guilty men go free than once innocent in jail," all of that stuff.
But in my mind (and correct me if I'm wrong, not a criminal attorney), this is designed to resolve questions of *fact* in favor of the D. We don't know exactly what went on and we can't, so if the testimony and evidence are close, err on the side of protecting the innocent.
The point I was raising is the over- or under-inclusion of the law. Granted, you have to have a state interest to criminalize conduct and we don't want to criminalize anything we don't have to. But I think most people's concept of sexual assault would cover, for example, someone touching someone's stomach through their clothes for sexual gratification without consent. Basically, assume we have perfect knowledge of the events (including mental state/intent), and assume that what occurred is undoubtedly what "we" (society) consider to be a sexual assault. At that point, we would certainly not want to release the defendant solely because the language of the statute did not actually criminalize the conduct.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922053&forum_id=2#28224816)
|
Date: June 30th, 2015 10:51 AM Author: motley aquamarine bbw
The current statute for MBE defines sexual assault ("rape") as a man putting his penis in the vagina of a woman who is not his wife without the woman's effective consent AND by force.
So, I think we could probably update this one a little
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2922053&forum_id=2#28229620) |
|
|