Washington Supreme Court rules the state cannot put the burden on rape defendants to prove that an alleged victim consented

Piroko · 2014-10-30T22:19:04+00:00

Dammit, and here I was hoping they'd throw down the Magna Carta so I could subinfeudate.

Seriously though, 3 dissenters?! WTF? We're gonna make burden of proof a political issue?

daktardoom · 2014-10-31T01:54:49+00:00

This is good news, right? Why am I not seeing more enthousiasm? Isn't this kind of a win? If the burden was on rape defendants it would be even easier to make false accusations. So to me it seems that the fact that that change was revoked, means they came to their senses? Or am I reading this wrong?

TracyMorganFreeman · 2014-10-31T01:47:13+00:00

a decision critics said will make it harder to punish dangerous sex offenders.

The critics aren't wrong here, but the accused have rights too.

eletheros · 2014-10-31T01:36:43+00:00

The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge

Really, this means "essentially made consent an affirmative defense to the crime of sex"

In these "hesaidshesaid" cases, the fact that sex occurred is rarely under dispute and requiring the (male) defendant to prove consent provides one of the many "I decided a week later I was raped" loopholes in our laws.

thescientist8371 · 2014-10-31T02:53:05+00:00

A correct decision by Washington state's high court. I'd rather see bad guys go free than innocent people be convicted. Justices who dissent are very shortsighted to say the least.

Paranatural · 2014-10-31T02:53:20+00:00

Thank the FSM there are still people with some fucking sense. The burden of proof should NEVER rest with the accused.

my_name_is_gato · 2014-10-30T22:20:03+00:00

It makes sense legally. Lack of consent is an essential element of the crime and the state must prove each element.

The defendant must only prove affirmative defenses. For example, "Yes, I had sex with her against her will, but I did so because someone else was holding me at gunpoint." Defendant must prove that he was at gunpoint.

themanbat · 2014-10-31T06:20:51+00:00

Thank Goodness. Can you imagine the alternative? Any one could accuse any sexual partner, at any time and they would likely be convicted. How do you prove that your partner consented? Sign a contract? Nope. Consent to sexual activity can be withdrawn at any time. I guess we'd all have to start filming all our sexual encounters to keep us safe.

Fhwqhgads · 2014-10-31T14:07:28+00:00

You mean the burden of proof should be on the person making the claim, just like in every other kind of case? Innocent until proven guilty? Duh!

That this was even in question shows the extreme power of feminism.

googlecacheguy · 2014-10-30T22:20:07+00:00

Google cached version

AceyJuan · 2014-10-31T06:33:12+00:00

Best news I've heard all month, thank you.

It's sad that our best victory in recent memory is the high court upholding basic human rights for men, but that's where our country sits right now. We're fighting for basic human rights against those who would take them away.

tallwheel · 2014-10-31T01:09:50+00:00

On first reading, I had trouble discerning what was decided earlier and what is being reversed now. (I think I've got it now.)

Xenophi · 2014-10-31T03:14:44+00:00

How does one go about proving no consent was given, while the only proof exists within the perceptions of the people involved?

ramewe · 2014-10-31T04:00:02+00:00

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

Very much appreciate this point.

modern_rabbit · 2014-10-31T11:59:17+00:00

6-3??? AND THESE PEOPLE ARE TRUSTED TO ENFORCE THE LAW???

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2014-10-31T13:54:07+00:00

Scary that this was even in question.

wlxr · 2014-10-31T02:09:14+00:00

Actually this is pretty correct. In these cases it is up to detectives to submit the evidence to court.

This ruling is like me saying "It isn't up to the jury who they get to judge." Because it never fucking was.

wazzup987 · 2014-10-31T02:14:40+00:00

Sanity prevails?

Jack92783 · 2014-10-31T11:00:09+00:00

I am not a lawyer:

Here's the thing- one could easily argue that consent was an affirmative defense to the charge of rape, like the veracity of the statement is to a charge of libel, or self defense is to a charge of battery/murder.

However, the difference here is that getting shot is always injurious. Getting libeled is always injurious. It's only justified if it's acting in defense of yourself or others, or if it happens to be truthful.

To say that consent must be proven would be to claim that all sex is necessarily injurious to the female participant, and mainstream society is not quite to that point yet (Only respected academics are).

Quickly approaching the precipice, though.

Giyika · 2014-10-31T13:56:14+00:00

I'm curious in the credentials of the 3 who voted against this. Maybe Washington state should do a little audit of their justices

RememberWind · 2014-10-30T22:58:03+00:00

No shit.

Tusse · 2014-10-31T01:08:49+00:00

Just as well they didn't because if they had then there would a long queue of people claiming the same 'right' for any other case there is.

At which point we might as well just go back to the inquisition and the torture chamber.

Nomenimion · 2014-10-31T05:28:30+00:00

Excellent. Sanity, at last.

Anq · 2014-10-31T12:20:54+00:00

So, common sense prevails in the justice system by a margin of 2. Huzzah?

Tarnsman4Life · 2014-10-31T15:04:26+00:00

As someone who is also a 2A advocate it does not surprise me that 3 voted against this. Increasingly we have activist judges and legislators who discount the Constitution because it is "an old document written by wealthy white men". This is the downright arrogance of our politicians and judges to think they know better than the founding fathers.

Planner_Hammish · 2014-10-30T23:10:11+00:00

This is the thing I don't get about this sub: when someone posts a crappy facebook screencap of some idiot spouting off feminist drivel, 853 upvotes.

Yet here is something that is actually meaningful and here we are with 4 upvotes at the time I'm writing this. This sub should really switch to a self-post only mode, and everyone has to explain why the post is relevant to MRM in the text box.

planned_serendipity1 · 2014-10-31T02:43:27+00:00

Hallelujah, maybe common sense will eventually come to campus politics.

PierceHarlan · 2014-10-31T13:23:40+00:00

A massively important ruling.

miaSissy · 2014-10-31T21:43:11+00:00

Oh thank god. I almost lost the last of my respect for humanity.

thelightishigh · 2014-11-01T13:48:51+00:00

When a law is found unconstitutional, there should be legally mandated consequences for politicians who enacted that law. Maybe have them banned from occupying a political position for a couple of years, up to prison if the infringement of personal rights is very severe.

It would really make the government think twice before infringing anyone's rights and we wouldn't have to fight so much and so often for our rights.

Goat-headed-boy · 2014-10-31T13:00:15+00:00

Not many posts with good news here, I am quite pleased to see this. Thanks.

ramewe · 2014-10-31T04:04:17+00:00

"Justice Susan Owens wrote the dissent, arguing that the majority’s opinion would reverse decades of progress in the handling of rape cases.

Before 1975, she noted, rape was defined in state law as sex “committed against the person’s will and without the person’s consent.” This required prosecutors to prove that a rape victim had not consented — meaning trials often focused as much on the actions of the alleged victim as on the actions of the defendant. That discouraged victims from reporting the crimes.

Justice!

Electroverted · 2014-10-31T17:39:02+00:00

Attention: California

hugged_at_gunpoint · 2014-10-31T01:51:53+00:00

Wouldn't the plaintiff be forced to prove non-consent? How is that good? That's like having to prove you did not consent to your mugger taking your wallet. Can someone explain?

Title	Washington Supreme Court rules the state cannot put the burden on rape defendants to prove that an alleged victim consented
Author	Oroso
Upvotes	1007
Comments	136
Date	October 30, 2014 10:12 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ktqkn/washington_supreme_court_rules_the_state_cannot/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/washington-supreme-court-rules-the-state-cannot.994055 https://theredarchive.com/post/994055

Comments