All UVa frats on suspension

[Bay]

<p>

• Based on my experience on the inside of a university, I think it’s almost certain that UVa and the police know a lot about the case already but are sitting on the information. They won’t release anything until they have completed their investigation. Even then UVa will handle their students with kid gloves and if Jackie’s story ends up being mostly untrue they probably bury the details in some file cabinet.

</p>

<p>Unless something about the case goes to trial or someone writes a book, we will never get all of the details, and even then the facts may not be complete or accurate. The most we can hope for to fill in the blanks is for reputable news sources to publish accurate information as it becomes available to them.</p>

[SoWhatDoYouDoHuh]

<p>That’s not the Yes means Yes law, CF. I quote from your link:</p>

<p>

According to Penal Code 261 PC, the legal definition of “rape” in California law is when an individual engages in sexual intercourse with another person…and certain conditions are met. First off, the sexual intercourse needs to be either against that person’s will, or without that person’s consent.4</p>

<p>This means that the act needs to have been accomplished through one of the following:</p>

<p>Physical force.</p>

<p>Violence.</p>

<p>Duress. This is a direct or implied threat sufficient to coerce a reasonable person to perform…or agree to allow…an act which he/she would not otherwise have performed or allowed. Example: Trevor works for the US immigration authorities. He tells Luisa, who is an illegal immigrant, that she will be deported if she doesn’t have sex with him…so she agrees to have sex with him. This is rape by means of duress.</p>

<p>Menace (a threat, declaration, or act that shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another).</p>

<p>Fear of bodily harm to oneself or to another. The alleged victim’s fear must be actual and reasonable under the circumstances, or, if it’s unreasonable, the accused must know of the victim’s fear and take advantage of it.</p>

<p>Fear of retaliation (a threat to kidnap, falsely imprison, or inflict serious pain, injury, or death upon the alleged victim or another person).</p>

<p>Fraud—because the accused either (1) fraudulently convinces the alleged victim that they are married, or (2) fraudulently convinces the alleged victim that the sexual act serves a “professional” purpose even though it does no such thing.

</p>

<p>I am fine with this law! This is age old standard rape law. Who can argue against it? You have been conflating this with the Yes means Yes law? Wow. Just wow.</p>

<p>If this already covered Yes means Yes, CA folks wouldn’t need a new Yes means Yes law, now would they? The Yes means Yes law required enthusiastic, affirmative consent throughout the duration of the sex act. The CA Penal code requires NOTHING of that sort. NOTHING. This is precisely the kind of conflation that advocates do, but did you really think you wouldn’t get exposed?</p>

<p>Yes, the CA law says that someone CAN be too drunk to be unable to consent, but just as in other states, it would leave it to the court system to decide how much drunk is too drunk. JUST AS IN OTHER STATES. So, no, the NZ case would NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE RAPE in CA. You may wish that it is, but per the link YOU provided, it isn’t.</p>

<p>Please, can we not conflate and make up things here?</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>Bay, I’m sure that your son already meets the very low bar of only having sex with someone who wants to have sex with him and shows it. That legal requirement is pretty minimal.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>SoWhat, you didn’t quote this part:</p>

<p>

Consent means positive cooperation in an act or attitude as an exercise of free will. A person who “consents” to sexual intercourse does so freely and voluntarily with knowledge of the true nature of the sexual act.

</p>

<p>Or this part:</p>

<p>

Resistance is not an element of rape

</p>

<p>Under California law, you cannot defend yourself against a charge of rape by saying that she didn’t say No. Resistance is not an element of rape. </p>

[dstark]

<p>CF, I don’t understand this argument on yes means yes. What does yes means yes do that is objectionable?</p>

[TatinG]

<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva/uva-s-closed-response-to-rolling-stone-allegations-under-fire/article_dd540752-819e-11e4-bdf0-1ba74feebce5.html”>http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva/uva-s-closed-response-to-rolling-stone-allegations-under-fire/article_dd540752-819e-11e4-bdf0-1ba74feebce5.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The UVa president has refused records requests from the local Charlottesville newspaper. She has also refused to say whether the independent review being conducted by O’Melveny & Myer will be released. </p>

[JHS]

<p>Here’s the key part of the California law as regards impairment:</p>

<p>

Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
. . . .
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused. . . .

</p>

<p>I am not certain the woman in the NZ video meets that standard, but she’s certainly in the ballpark. However, the language of the general criminal statute is somewhat different from “Yes Means Yes.” It’s more like “Being Too Drunk To Say No Means No.”</p>

[SoWhatDoYouDoHuh]

<p>CF, </p>

<p>Let me ask you this, straight up. Please try to give Yes/No answers, if not in the forum, then in your own mind.</p>

<p>Did CA recently pass a law that’s colloquially known as Yes mean Yes? [My answer is, Yes.]</p>

<p>Does this new Yes means Yes law require continuous enthusiastic consent throughout the sex act? [My answer is, Yes.]</p>

<p>Does the existing law in the criminal books require that? [My answer is, No.]</p>

<p>Are people criticizing the existing law in the criminal books? [My answer is, No.]</p>

<p>Are people criticizing the new Yes means Yes law? [My answer is, Yes.]</p>

<p>Given all that, is the existing law in the books the same as the Yes means Yes law? [My answer is, any reasonable person would conclude that the two are completely different.]</p>

<p>I would like to know your answer, but I suspect I will get some new spin. All I will say is this, people get it even if you don’t. You can google Yes means Yes and find articles by dozens of reputable analysts, some in favor and some against, who all are unanimous on one thing, this is not existing CA law, this is something new, and this only applies to students in CA colleges that receive state funds. </p>

<p>I understand advocacy. I also understand that spinning is part of it. But I also understand that people are not dumb and you can’t spin anything and everything. The spin has to be somewhat plausible.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>In my view, the news articles about California’s Yes Means Yes law, SB 967, are misleading. In adjudicating rape cases, California already requires affirmative consent, for everyone, not just college students.</p>

<p>Here’s SB 967: <a href=“Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.”>Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.;

<p>It spells out affirmative consent a little. It requires that colleges use the preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudicating college disciplinary cases concerning sexual assault (but that is already required by the Feds anyway). It spells out some requirements for college sexual assault tribunals. </p>

[dstark]

<p>

"Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
. . . .
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused. . . .

</p>

<p>3) is bad? A bad section of the law?</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>*Did CA recently pass a law that’s colloquially known as Yes mean Yes? * Yes. It’s SB 967.</p>

<p>*Is it the same as what was already in the books for CA Penal Code? * No.</p>

<p>*Does this new Yes means Yes law require continuous enthusiastic consent throughout the sex act? * No. Nothing about enthusiasm is mentioned. </p>

<p>Does the existing law in the criminal books require that? The existing criminal law also does not require enthusiastic consent. The CA Penal Code already requires continuous consent-- a person can withdraw consent at any time. The law firm page that I linked to gives an example of that, the example of Karen and Paul, where Karen initially consents but then withdraws her consent.</p>

<p>*Are people criticizing the existing law in the criminal books? * I don’t know. It doesn’t seem that the existing California law agrees with what you say should be the law. The existing law makes what you say should be legal illegal, since you say that a drunk guy should legally be able to have sex with a drunk woman unless she says No, and that does not comport with the existing law.</p>

<p>Are people criticizing the new Yes means Yes law? Yes.</p>

<p>Given all that, is the existing law in the books the same as the Yes means Yes law? No, but the consent provisions in SB 967 are the same as the consent provisions in existing law.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>“They only decided to moderate the behavior of college kids, and not all adults.”
“They just want college kids to not have sex, period.”
That’s nuts. And alarmism.</p>

<p>They are looking at a subset of college sex and trying to have impact on that.</p>

<p>And what’s wrong with being Sure? What is wrong with being Sure? What the heck are we thinking? You want to pretend that’s your civil rights issue? Like, Dang, they want me not to assume or presume?</p>

[al2simon]

<p>The YES means YES law is meant to force California colleges to change their codes of conduct.</p>

<p>The already existing California law in the criminal code applies to the criminal code, not colleges’ codes of conduct.</p>

<p>That’s why the new law isn’t the same, and wouldn’t be even if the definitions of rape and consent were copied verbatim.</p>

<p>Having said that, I tend to agree that the consequences of the YES means YES law will play out in ways that no one here can predict. I don’t think the text of the law is a great guide to what will actually happen.</p>

[SoWhatDoYouDoHuh]

<p>

In my view, the news articles about California’s Yes Means Yes law, SB 967, are misleading.

</p>

<p>In your view, everyone else is wrong and you are right. In your view, no one should read the interpretation of Yes means Yes as done by several analysts from both sides of the aisle, they should just read your interpretation of it (and you have said this clearly before).</p>

<p>Why is that? I am serious in asking this, as it shows a closed mind, and there is no point is having a logical debate based on facts and case law with someone whose mind is closed. I already ignore a few folks on this forum whose mind I believe are closed, even as they try to engage me repeatedly. I felt that you are not one of them, as you took in the facts about the university tribunals, and changed your preference from preponderance of evidence to the old standard, clear and convining, which was not leading to any convictions of college rapists. You did that because it was the rational thing to do, even though you wouldn’t get the outcome you wanted (more convictions).</p>

<p>That I found to be very positive. No dyed in the wool activist would ever do it. They would ignore all facts and logic. So why in this case do you keep arguing in the face of all contradictory evidence that current criminal law in CA that all CA adults are subject to do NOT require continuous enthusiastic consent, which is the hallmark of Yes means Yes? I am genuinely confused here.</p>

[SoWhatDoYouDoHuh]

<p>

Does the existing law in the criminal books require that? The existing criminal law also does not require enthusiastic consent. The CA Penal Code already requires continuous consent-- a person can withdraw consent at any time. The law firm page that I linked to gives an example of that, the example of Karen and Paul, where Karen initially consents but then withdraws her consent.

</p>

<p>Requiring continuous consent is NOT the same as requiring one party to stop if the other says No. That latter standard is the old one - No means No. No one is arguing against that. People are arguing against lack of Continuous Yes meaning No. No one is arguing that No doesn’t mean No.</p>

<p>Again, you are conflating and confusing.</p>

[TV4caster]

<p>

@TatinG

This article details how the Yale ‘informal complaint’ system works. It makes the old Soviet system look fair by comparison.</p>

<ul>
<li>He never learned the accusations.</li>
<li>There was no fact finding, just a complaint.</li>
<li>No record was kept.</li>
<li>There was no opportunity to clear his name.</li>
<li>And the supposedly confidential proceedings were made known to the Rhodes committee, his employer and the NY Times!</li>
</ul>

<p>As a result he lost his Rhodes Scholarship and his summer job. He did get into Harvard Law, though. Still no one should be subject to such Starr Chambers.

</p>

<p>And, as I pointed out earlier, the exact same thing happens if your coworker complains to the police about you. You can’t ask for a trial to “prove it”. Also, your bullet point about the “supposedly confidential proceedings” makes it sound like the investigators leaked it. It was the complainant, and the exact same thing can happen in my example. Your coworker can tip off the Rhodes people, or the press, that you had a complaint against you. </p>

[dstark]

<p>Do people really object to 3)?</p>

<p>I have a son. I don’t object to 3). </p>

<p>How does 3) affect he said she said cases?</p>

[TV4caster]

<p>

@awc

Alcohol laws are good examples. It is illegal for underaged people to drink. And how many families give let their young kids and teenagers have a very small glass of wine during special celebrations? Millions.

</p>

<p>That is wrong (at least in my state, and probably most others). It is NOT against the law to drink when underage if your parents give consent and it is in your own home. It may even be legal if your parents give consent and you are in something else’s home, but I am not sure about that one. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>@TV4caster - See my follow-on post. I agree that my initial example was too general to prove my point. See my post #2419.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>It doesn’t matter what news articles say, for our purposes. We are intelligent people, and if we want to know what the Yes Means Yes law says, and what the current California Penal Codes say, we can just look at them.</p>

<p>The California Penal code requires that someone indicate consent by “positive cooperation.” What, in your opinion, is the difference between affirmative consent and “positive cooperation by act or attitude”? You have previously said that you think that a person can continue advances on another person if the other person doesn’t say No. Do you contend that merely not saying No constitutes positive cooperation? </p>

<p>In my opinion, affirmative consent and positive cooperation are the same thing. And neither of them is satisfied by lying there inert and not saying No.</p>

<p>What is an example of positive cooperation that is not affirmative consent?</p>