<p>“ABS, I wonder whether they mention the illegalities in health/theology classes.”</p>
<p>Most certainly yes, in our public school district.</p>
<p>ABS, that is fine. I would suggest in a health or theology class of 30 kids, based on the DOJ study, that 1/3 of college guys would rape if they could get away with it, that the legal ramnifications should be discussed.</p>
<p>I think many parents may think, oh no, my kid wont do this. Someone’s kids do.</p>
<p>Yes, kayf, of course the legal ramifications should be discussed! Who is saying they shouldn’t be? You seem to think that if someone talks about the moral and ethical aspects of these crimes that they are neglecting the legal aspects. That needn’t be the case. I think Consolation’s post #770 addresses these issues rather eloquently.</p>
<p>I would not be surprised if, in the case of many kids who commit these crimes, parents neglected to discuss these topics along ANY dimensions—moral, ethical or legal.</p>
<p>This is part of what Consolation says in 770</p>
<p>“But I would suggest that the MOST effective way of preventing violence against women is to change the mindset and moral compass of society.”</p>
<p>When Consolation puts moral mindset ahead of legal enforcement, I disagree.</p>
<p>Okay, well, we disagree, then. I am 100 percent in Consolation’s column on this one.</p>
<p>Legal enforcement can, and does, change moral mindset and moral compass. (Check out something called the Civil Rights Movement.)</p>
<p>(And when laws aren’t enforced, people lose respect for them.)</p>
<p>No one is suggesting not vigorously prosecuting sexual predators.</p>
<p>This is not an either/or situation.</p>
<p>People’s hearts and minds are changed in multiple ways. One way is by vigorous application of the law. Another is by changing the basic underlying assumptions that create the crime. We do not want a society in which people do not discriminate against people of color ONLY because it is against the law. In that kind of society, the law is perpetually shoveling against the tide, and people are all too often victimized. We want a society in which people do not discriminate because they genuinely believe that all are created equal, so that the crime does not occur in the first place. It is something to work towards. The law is there for the instances in which the moral compass fails.</p>
<p>BTW, since laws and penalties vary from place to place and time to time, the law provides a shaky basis at best for moral/ethical behavior. Slavery, Jim Crow, marital rape, and numerous other abhorrent behaviors: all legal at some point in our country. Those things did not become “wrong” when they became illegal. They were wrong all along, and many knew it.</p>
<p>Certainly, I would not want my S to live his life behaving in dishonorable, ungenerous, mean-spirited ways simply because it was not illegal.</p>
<p>“The law is there for the instances in which the moral compass fails.”</p>
<p>I think that is very restricted view of what law can do, and has done. The law can also help bring us to our better natures. It is an iterative process. It is not the basis of ethical behavior. But it can change behaviors, and change in behavior can often take place before changes in the heart.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. As I said above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that much of the progress made in the last 50 years or so is attributable to this. I guess what I meant was “IF the moral compass fails, the law is there” as a motivator/enforcer of ethical behavior.</p>
<p>Certainly, especially for those who would be victimized, having the criminal constrained by law is better than having him/her not constrained at all.</p>
<p>
Tut, tut, mini. Your comment was “Woman can’t be held liable for someone else’s actions done to her when she is drunk.” As is often the case with you, it is difficult to ascertain if you are describing or advocating a particular point of view. Certainly it’s true that some laws, and many people, think of sex as something that is “done to” the woman, no matter what she actually does. I simply observed that this assumes some things about sexual activity that are not necessarily true. I personally am not comforted by the idea that prosecutorial discretion is the way to protect us from inartfully written laws.</p>
<p>“As is often the case with you, it is difficult to ascertain if you are describing or advocating a particular point of view” - Hunt #1</p>
<p>What difference does it make? </p>
<p>"…and many people, think of sex as something that is “done to” the woman, no matter what she actually does. I simply observed that this assumes some things about sexual activity that are not necessarily true. " - Hunt #2</p>
<p>Mini was referring to an intoxicated woman and stating an intoxicated woman cannot give consent under the law. It was very clear, as you further quoted him: “In my state, it’s not a matter of what “I mean” or what “I suggest”. It is the law that if she is drunk (as determined in a court of law), she can’t give consent. It doesn’t matter what she does.”</p>
<p>Reading anything else into those statements (Hunt #2) is a little weird, imo.</p>
<p>OhioMom, my point is that I do not agree that when two drunk people have sex, that it can always be described as one of them “doing” something to the other. mini responds that the law says this–and my response is, I feel no problem discussing what the law should or should not say. mini thinks, I guess, that any such problems can be dealt with through prosecutorial discretion. I question that. I also think this idea that women must be considered the passive victims in all such situations is overly paternalistic.</p>
<p>Please note: I am NOT talking about the circumstance of the Dietrich case, or any case like it. It shouldn’t be necessary to say that, but I think I’d better.</p>
<p>From Hunt - “I personally am not comforted by the idea that prosecutorial discretion is the way to protect us from inartfully written laws”</p>
<p>I would certainly add that as seen in the Dietrich case, prosecutorial discretion does not give me any comfort at all.</p>
<p>kayf, on this we agree–see my first post in this thread.</p>
<p>To be honest, I had never heard about this law until it was explained to me a few years ago by my now 18 year old son when it was discussed in health class. I’m certainly not that knowledgeable about the law. My understanding of the law is an intoxicated person is considered unable to give true consent. What is considered intoxicated? We can all recognize extreme intoxication. Where is the line drawn? I don’t know. Some instances are obvious, others not so much.</p>
<p>This may be a picky point, and I think that some people don’t think this situation happens often, but I have a problem with a scenario in which two people get drunk and go have sex, and the law proclaims that one of them is a victim who couldn’t give consent, and the other has committed a criminal act. My (perhaps sketchy) understanding of human biology suggests that this is not always a sensible way to view this situation. Perhaps prosecutorial discretion deals with any such difficulties.</p>
<p>I have a problem with knowing the level of alcohol consumption. What constitutes intoxication, especially a borderline case? Is one drink too much, two? Only extreme cases are truly obvious. Some people hold their alcohol better than others.</p>
<p>
This is the problem, and it’s part of why these cases are fraught with proof issues. How much alcohol makes somebody drunk enough so they can’t consent? What if they are pretty drunk, but still behave or talk in a way that a reasonable person might interpret as consent? This kind of heavy drinking is risky for everybody. I think it’s more risky for girls, because I think there are more predatory boys, but there are risks for boys, too. As I mentioned above, I think being falsely accused of rape is one of those risks, but there are others that are even more likely to happen.</p>
<p>I don’t have problems with any of these. I think prosecutors have more than enough discretion, and they regularly use it, and there are so many classes and steps in rape/sexual assault/assault felonies and misdemenors that charges can, and are, calibrated to fit the crime. The prosecutor still has to prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. Does the law occasionally make mistakes? You bet. Mostly by not prosecuting serious crimes committed by well-heeled campus criminals.</p>
<p>I do have problems with tens of thousands of sexual predators that exist on American college campuses.</p>
<p>I believe that in our earlier discussion of this topic what really made some people nervous was that some of these situations are being adjudicated by college disciplinary processes that do not adhere to the standard of proof of a criminal proceeding, nor do they allow either party to have representation, the ability to question the accuser, etc. It seemed like an inadequate process by which to hang the title of rapist around someone’s neck for life. There was, IIRC, one poster whose S had been found guilty by such a process, branded a rapist, and expelled. The young woman was subsequently determined to have filed false charges, and was actually subject to arrest if she reentered the state (SD? ND?). Yet the college would not revisit the matter, and would not reverse its penalty of expulsion.</p>
<p>Of course, it is also true that many have found that college proceedings seem more interested in protecting the school than identifying or punishing a rapist. It is for this reason that many say that a young woman should always go straight to the police, not to campus authorities.</p>
<p>I don’t think that any rational person would deny that the instances of unreported rape far, far, far, out-number cases of false accusation.</p>