Pedro de San Patricio
Gold Member
This was something that came up in our annual training last night. Basically the idea comes down to removing women's legal right to consent and treat all formal charges of heterosexual or lesbian sexual assault or rape essentially as statutory. People can still have sex. Nobody will know what you do in your own bedroom (or living room, or pool, or car...). It won't change much in that regard. What it will change is how trials are conducted. It won't be about establishing whether he had her consent or not, since that concept no longer applies. It will simply be about establishing whether the act happened.
As an example, say a 45 year old woman is accusing her boss of raping her in the office at work that night. Her boss can solidly establish that it couldn't have happened because he was eating out with his family and inspection of the restaurant's cameras clearly show him there at the time the act was alleged to have occurred. He's found innocent, the case is dropped, and no further action is taken. In another scenario, he's found to have been at their place of business at the time and there is genetic evidence proving that intercourse occurred. He's convicted on those grounds. In a third scenario, he claims that he was driving home but lacks any evidence for his alibi. The court convicts him to err on the side of the victim.
(I realize how this sounds. Please note that I'm being entirely serious in proposing this. It's not in any way a joke or parody.)
As an example, say a 45 year old woman is accusing her boss of raping her in the office at work that night. Her boss can solidly establish that it couldn't have happened because he was eating out with his family and inspection of the restaurant's cameras clearly show him there at the time the act was alleged to have occurred. He's found innocent, the case is dropped, and no further action is taken. In another scenario, he's found to have been at their place of business at the time and there is genetic evidence proving that intercourse occurred. He's convicted on those grounds. In a third scenario, he claims that he was driving home but lacks any evidence for his alibi. The court convicts him to err on the side of the victim.
(I realize how this sounds. Please note that I'm being entirely serious in proposing this. It's not in any way a joke or parody.)
Last edited:
