Rate the MPC's new definition of rape/sexual assault:
| Deranged stock car double fault | 06/28/15 | | exhilarant effete skinny woman | 06/28/15 | | glittery slippery location | 06/29/15 | | abnormal state new version | 06/29/15 | | Yellow forum | 06/28/15 | | Poppy vivacious base | 06/28/15 | | Opaque Apoplectic Pervert Laser Beams | 06/28/15 | | Poppy vivacious base | 06/28/15 | | Opaque Apoplectic Pervert Laser Beams | 06/28/15 | | Poppy vivacious base | 06/28/15 | | Opaque Apoplectic Pervert Laser Beams | 06/28/15 | | orchid fragrant institution | 06/28/15 | | Opaque Apoplectic Pervert Laser Beams | 06/28/15 | | Unhinged cuckoldry giraffe | 06/28/15 | | cerebral turquoise dog poop | 06/29/15 | | Cruel-hearted Coldplay Fan | 06/29/15 | | Deranged stock car double fault | 06/29/15 | | Deranged stock car double fault | 06/29/15 | | chrome fear-inspiring temple toaster | 06/29/15 | | hilarious becky field | 06/29/15 | | chrome fear-inspiring temple toaster | 06/29/15 | | glittery slippery location | 06/29/15 | | Crusty know-it-all incel | 06/29/15 | | cracking chapel lettuce | 06/29/15 | | cracking chapel lettuce | 06/29/15 | | Gaped Concupiscible Center | 06/29/15 | | Canary arousing juggernaut principal's office | 06/30/15 | | Aromatic Abode Associate | 06/29/15 | | costumed stage | 06/29/15 | | Multi-colored area | 06/29/15 | | Beady-eyed menage | 06/29/15 | | Multi-colored area | 06/29/15 | | Deranged stock car double fault | 06/29/15 | | Hyperactive useless pocket flask | 06/29/15 | | hilarious becky field | 06/29/15 | | Hyperactive useless pocket flask | 06/29/15 | | cracking chapel lettuce | 06/29/15 | | sinister citrine school cafeteria international law enforcement agency | 06/29/15 | | cracking chapel lettuce | 06/29/15 | | crimson big jap | 06/29/15 | | sinister citrine school cafeteria international law enforcement agency | 06/29/15 | | sticky cumskin station | 06/30/15 | | cracking chapel lettuce | 06/30/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 28th, 2015 9:43 PM Author: Deranged stock car double fault
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: glittery slippery location
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: Multi-colored area
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: cracking chapel lettuce
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: cracking chapel lettuce
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) |
|
|