Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/ar...slature-passes-yes-means-yes-bill-5719664.php

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when "yes means yes" while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses.

The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.

Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a paradigm shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." Earlier versions of the bill had similar language.

"With this measure, we will lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that's healthy, that's conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex," de Leon said before the vote.

Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it's also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep.

Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as maybe a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Some critics say the legislation is overreaching and sends universities into murky, unfamiliar legal waters.

Gordon Finley, an adviser to the National Coalition for Men, wrote an editorial asking Brown not to sign the bill. He argued that "this campus rape crusade bill" presumes the guilt of the accused.

"This is nice for the accusers — both false accusers as well as true accusers — but what about the due process rights of the accused," Finley wrote.

The bill passed the state Assembly on Monday by a 52-16 vote. Some Republicans in that house questioned if statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define consent.

There was no opposition from Senate Republicans.

"This bill is very simple; it just requires colleges to adopt policies concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, gang violence and stalking," said Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres. "They should have already been doing that."

The bill would apply to all California post-secondary schools, public and private, that receive state money for student financial aid. The California State University and University of California systems are backing the legislation after adopting similar consent standards this year.

The bill also requires colleges and universities to adopt "victim-centered" sexual-assault response policies and implement comprehensive programs to prevent assault.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Sounds about right to me. This is great news.

 

[Brakke]

Cool. lol @ "sends universities into murky, unfamiliar legal waters." Yes, actually pursuing rape investigations *is* pretty unfamiliar waters for universities.

 

[Riki]

Sad that this needs to be a law, but it's a good step.

 

[Sub_Level]

The drugged, unconscious or asleep part is awesome and fair. Glad this is now law in that state.

But how the heck are you supposed to know when a wide awake drunk chick who says yes actually means no, especially when you yourself are drunk? The drunk hookup probably makes up a sizable portion of college/young-adult hookups in general.

 

[UnluckyKate]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

 

[Ryaaan14]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

It doesn't. That's the ugly side to this.

 

[UnluckyKate]

It doesn't. That's the ugly side to this.

*sight* can't believe false rape accuser can go with it so easily

 

[JohnDoe]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

What?
Have you seen some statistics on sexual assault in universities in the United States?
Btw, nothing protects you from a false rape accusation but I guess a good legal system prevents you from a false rape conviction? You realize that passing these laws is one thing, but proving it in court and the way law enforcement deals with it are a huge problem in the US still? I don't get why false accusations are always brought up with rape as if it's the only crime you can get falsely convicted for.

 

[cubicle47b]

Cool. I think they should attempt to clarify 'drunk', though.

 

[Joey Fox]

If both people are drunk, are they raping each other, then? Laws need to be common sense and outlawing drunken hookups is not that.

 

[The Technomancer]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

False rape accusations are not a large issue compared to rape cases that don't get proper investigation or prosecution. And the latter is an enormous issue

 

[Somnid]

I've heard dark alleys also have a problem with rapes, we should pass laws to make sure consent is consent when investigating dark alleys.

The university part has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Can somebody tell me why it's a thing?

 

[bigmf]

Administer a breathalyser, get it in writing and plan ahead at least a week.

 

[The Technomancer]

Four posts and we already have false rape accusations brought up. /sigh

Its just so common! Like one out of every five guys I know will suffer a false rape accusation

Oh no, wait, that's women who will suffer a sexual assault

 

[cubicle47b]

As for when someone is too drunk to consent to sex: If they have trouble walking or talking, just call it a night and hook up when you both are more sober.

That's a fine rule, but I want a legal clarification so it's not a gray area. Giving a blood alcohol level along with a description of behavior at that level would be great.

 

[bomma_man]

Law's been like this in Australia for years, lol at "unexplored waters".

 

[Giever]

The drugged, unconscious or asleep part is awesome and fair. Glad this is now law in that state.

But how the heck are you supposed to know when a wide awake drunk chick who says yes actually means no, especially when you yourself are drunk? The drunk hookup probably makes up a sizable portion of college/young-adult hookups in general.

If you're both drunk, then it is clearly non-consensual both ways, and you are raping each other.

The text doesn't seem to specify a gender (or sex, or whatever) as to who can be raped, so this is the only thing I could assume would be the case.

 

[Mariolee]

Cool..

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

...beans.

I do agree with the other posters that false rape accusations most likely occur less than actual rape accusations that are thrown away or not revealed because of some ol' bullshit.

 

[JohnDoe]

Four posts and we already have false rape accusations brought up. /sigh


As for when someone is too drunk to consent to sex: If they have trouble walking or talking, just call it a night and hook up when you both are more sober.

Yup.

Also if both are drunk as shit and then do something one or both of them regret what they did... people tend to just call it a day and never talk about it again. And how would you bring that shit to court anyway?
But I guess we have to worry about all the false rape accusations now since women are horrible people who will see this as their opportunity to incarcerate every man who enters her vagina.

 

[cameron]

NCFM is concerned about this campus rape crusade bill.

 

[Sub_Level]

What?
Have you seen some statistics on sexual assault in universities in the United States?
Btw, nothing protects you from a false rape accusation but I guess a good legal system prevents you from a false rape conviction? You realize that passing these laws is one thing, but proving it in court and the way law enforcement deals with it are a huge problem in the US still? I don't get why false accusations are always brought up with rape as if it's the only crime you can get falsely convicted for.

Agreed, but to be fair a person accused of raping would likely face more public shame and ostracization even if they were proven innocent. It goes back to colonial era laws of branding a B on the forehead of burglars. Women should not feel the least bit of resistance to bringing forth devious acts committed against them, but false reports should yield the harshest fist of the law.

As for when someone is too drunk to consent to sex: If they have trouble walking or talking, just call it a night and hook up when you both are more sober.

Our culture does not facilitate/encourage that, unfortunately. At least not in the US. Alcohol is so prevalent. In a perfect world, we all carry breathalysers.

If you're both drunk, then it is clearly non-consensual both ways, and you are raping each other.

That's not really a pragmatic way of looking at things. People do not look at "last saturday at the club when so and so got lucky with some girl" as mutual raping. At a literal level, yes you are correct.

 

[ZealousD]

If you're both drunk, then it is clearly non-consensual both ways, and you are raping each other.

Are the courts really going to see it that way? Or does the first person reporting it become the "victim" and the other party the "perpetrator"?

 

[JohnDoe]

Agreed, but to be fair a person accused of raping would likely face more public shame and ostracization even if they were proven innocent. It goes back to colonial era laws of branding a B on the forehead of burglars. Women should not feel the least bit of resistance to bringing forth devious acts committed against them, but false reports should yield the harshest fist of the law.

Define false reports though. If I can't prove my case of getting raped is that a false report? If I get raped and report it but law enforcement/court treat my case poorly and turn into some bullshit about being a false accusation I should get punished?

 

[Ryaaan14]

Four posts and we already have false rape accusations brought up. /sigh

One actually. It's addressed in the OP.

 

[Sub_Level]

Define false reports though. If I can't prove my case of getting raped is that a false report? If I get raped and report it but law enforcement/court treat my case poorly and turn into some bullshit about being a false accusation I should get punished?

A false report, as I multiple people are defining it in this thread, is when someone convicted of raping someone else actually didn't rape at all.

Both scenarios you give are failures of the judicial system, and they probably happen to a large number of women. For your second question, no of course not.

 

[Giever]

A false report, as I multiple people are defining it in this thread, is when someone convicted of raping someone else actually didn't rape at all.

Wouldn't that be a wrongful conviction, rather than a false report? I assume a false report is just someone reporting that they were raped by someone else, when that someone else had not actually raped them.

 

[Ryaaan14]

Isn't this whole thing basically taking a black and white issue and just turning it into shades of grey? I'm all for a better system but I'm not entirely sure over-complicating a law with ands or buts is going to help anything. People bringing up false accusers have a point here, and it's NOT that false accusations are a bigger problem than actual rape.

 

[Sub_Level]

Wouldn't that be a wrongful conviction, rather than a false report? I assume a false report is just someone reporting that they were raped by someone else, when that someone else had not actually raped them.

If that's the phrase that works, then yes, that.

 

[bigmf]

Four posts and we already have false rape accusations brought up. /sigh

It was actually in the original post.

 

[jgwhiteus]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

Actually, I think it does somewhat help. It benefits both parties when there are clearer standards for permissible behavior.

The bill (at least tries to) set a more clear affirmative standard for consent, and if those standards and norms are actually taught by and spread by colleges it will help prevent misunderstandings and false accusations. If people who engage in sex know they're supposed to get affirmative consent, verbal or non-verbal, they can provide testimony or evidence on that point in their defense: "I don't believe it was rape because there was affirmative consent. She didn't just lay there silently and tell me later it was rape; she actually said yes." That's much better for a falsely accused rapist (and agreeing with above; "falsely accused" rapists are vastly outnumbered by unreported rapes) than offering a defense like, "Well, she didn't say no, so I thought she was fine with it, and now she's accusing me of rape."

If men change their behavior because of new guidelines and standards taught by colleges, it should help reduce incidents of "falsely reported" rape, and it empowers men to defend themselves if they know what the standards are and follow them.

 

[Giever]

If that's the phrase that works, then yes, that.

Well, I wasn't trying to be pedantic, or anything.

It's just that being convicted of something you didn't do is pretty seriously far beyond simply being accused of something you didn't do. Although both are, of course, damaging.

 

[Sub_Level]

Well, I wasn't trying to be pedantic, or anything.

It's just that being convicted of something you didn't do is pretty seriously far beyond simply being accused of something you didn't do. Although both are, of course, damaging.

You are correct in your specification.

 

[cameron]

Isn't this whole thing basically taking a black and white issue and just turning it into shades of grey? I'm all for a better system but I'm not entirely sure over-complicating a law with ands or buts is going to help anything. People bringing up false accusers have a point here, and it's NOT that false accusations are a bigger problem than actual rape.

How is it over complicating things? What is the salient point about false accusations? I'm not seeing it. How does this bill presume the guilt of the accused more than before? How does it change the due process rights of the accused?

The actual important point, as noted in the article:

Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault in order to have valid complaints.

 

[Slavik81]

The title s a little weird. The brunt of this appears to be demanding that universities create policy documents. The bit about defining consent appears comparatively minor.

I certainly don't know the nuisances of California criminal law, but the new definition of consent doesn't appear to be meaningfully different.

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

I don't see how anything affecting that has changed. Moreover, I'm also not sure how any protection is possible, beyond the standard presumption of innocence associated with any accusation.

 

[Zornack]

For those concerned by what is considered drunk, from the bill:

(4) ... it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity ... under any of the following circumstances:

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

The word "drunk" is never actually used so I'd say that its inclusion in the article is a case of bad reporting. From the text it seems pretty clear that the legislature is not concerned with normal sexual intercourse where alcohol is involved. Incapacitation and the inability to "understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" aren't part of a typical drunken hookup.

 

[devilhawk]

It is really, really, really, really, really, really important in these type of bills how it is worded.

 

[Sub_Level]

For those concerned by what is considered drunk, from the bill:



https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

The word "drunk" is never actually used so I'd say that its inclusion in the article is a case of bad reporting. From the text it seems pretty clear that the legislature is not concerned with normal sexual intercourse where alcohol is involved. Incapacitation and the inability to "understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" aren't part of a typical drunken hookup.

That's absolutely fair, then.

 

[old]

so how does it protect someone from a person making false rape accusation ?

It makes it worse.

Section 67386 (a) (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

It reduces the threshold from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence". Which means they only have to be 51% sure in what could be a he-said-she-said situation.

I like the rest of the bill but that part is crazy.

 

[Giever]

The word "drunk" is never actually used so I'd say that its inclusion in the article is a case of bad reporting. From the text it seems pretty clear that the legislature is not concerned with normal sexual intercourse where alcohol is involved. Incapacitation and the inability to "understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" aren't part of a typical drunken hookup.

Well that's a pretty ridiculous addition for the article to make. The removal of the drunk aspect removes most of my concerns over this definition of consent.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Will college football recruiting suffer

 

[devilhawk]

It makes it worse.



It reduces the threshold from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence". Which means they only have to be 51% sure in what could be a he-said-she-said situation.

I like the rest of the bill but that part is crazy.

A bill removing reasonable doubt? Wouldn't that violated the 5th amendment according to In Re Winship? This could damn well be unconstitutional.

 

[Famassu]

The drugged, unconscious or asleep part is awesome and fair. Glad this is now law in that state.

But how the heck are you supposed to know when a wide awake drunk chick who says yes actually means no, especially when you yourself are drunk? The drunk hookup probably makes up a sizable portion of college/young-adult hookups in general.

If someone says yes, then that's a yes. They can't argue afterwards that their yes wasn't exactly a yes, but more of a no, unless they were clearly so drunk (and you got them that drunk) they obviously can't make rational decisions.

That said, if you want to be completely safe, just don't have sex while either one is drunk to prevent both from having any regrets the day after.

 

[Slavik81]

It reduces the threshold from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence". Which means they only have to be 51% sure in what could be a he-said-she-said situation.

I like the rest of the bill but that part is crazy.

I take back the second half of my previous post.

I'm kinda surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. That's rather shoddy journalism from sfgate. Gordon Finley must be pissed that they presented his quotes without the context of what he was talking about.

 

[kirblar]

The update of the definitions is a good thing.

The continuation of an utterly broken system in how they handle these things through a body totally and utterly unequipped to do so isn't one.

 

[old]

A bill removing reasonable doubt? Wouldn't that violated the 5th amendment according to In Re Winship? This could damn well be unconstitutional.

Wouldn't be the first time states passed an unconstitutional bill. Unconstitutional ant-gay marriage bills are being struck down everyday.

But I do like this bill and hope it sticks...just without that one clause.

 

[jmood88]

I've heard dark alleys also have a problem with rapes, we should pass laws to make sure consent is consent when investigating dark alleys.

The university part has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Can somebody tell me why it's a thing?

Because, contrary to what you believe, most rapes don't happen in dark alleys and universities have shown that they will make up all kinds of excuses to not pursue a rape case.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

What?
Have you seen some statistics on sexual assault in universities in the United States?
Btw, nothing protects you from a false rape accusation but I guess a good legal system prevents you from a false rape conviction? You realize that passing these laws is one thing, but proving it in court and the way law enforcement deals with it are a huge problem in the US still? I don't get why false accusations are always brought up with rape as if it's the only crime you can get falsely convicted for.

It's brought up because simply being accused is usually enough to get you kicked out of whatever university you're at. I'm not some MRA, but there should be at least some protections for the accused, like making it illegal for a college to boot them out or for a newspaper to call them out by name before they go to court.

 

[Juice]

So two drunk people can't legally have sex?

Does tie go to the drunker one?

If both parties are drunk does the man just lose?

What if both parties are male?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

So two drunk people can't legally have sex?

Personally, I think people read into this type of thing more than what's intended. I understand that "drunk" can be ambiguous, and that ambiguity can make conversation harder. But I don't think the intent of that type of language is to target horny college kids hooking up while tipsy regularly in as much as it is to crack down on predatory behavior. There's a difference between "euphoric, lowered inhibitions" drunk and "I could barely stand up and I blacked out" drunk. I think we're more concerned about the latter.