Affirmative Consent Laws
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:13:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Affirmative Consent Laws
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Are you for or against Affirmative Consent Laws? Explain
#1
For
 
#2
Against
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 67

Author Topic: Affirmative Consent Laws  (Read 6056 times)
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2015, 07:35:23 AM »

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2015, 08:06:15 AM »

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems 2) nobody has tried to explain what practical nefarious consequences it would possibly have, and how it will bring about the Feminazi Reich as several posters here seem to believe.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2015, 09:40:35 AM »

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems 2) nobody has tried to explain what practical nefarious consequences it would possibly have, and how it will bring about the Feminazi Reich as several posters here seem to believe.

Well there's the obvious possibility that forgetting to ask something like "Hey, can I take your bra off?" in the heat of the moment being turned into "Consent was not given for x during intercourse," at a trial, or something like that. Or for turning a regrettable (but consensual) sexual encounter by two drunk college students into a high profile rape case because one of the parties didn't ask about engaging in a specific sex act during the deed.

It's a real shame that the ostensible liberal-left gave up being the fights for rationality and freedom in sexual relations in the 1960s in favor of becoming the bedroom police of the 2010s. Obviously none of what I'm saying applies to actual rape, but that's not what these laws are aimed at stopping. These laws are aimed at controlling and regulating sexual behavior between young adults, and for pushing sexuality back into the hushed tones of the 1950s, albeit from a moralistic, Victorian feminist standpoint than from a Jesus freak one.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2015, 10:42:19 AM »
« Edited: July 16, 2015, 10:50:47 AM by Marokai Besieged »

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems

They maybe don't all have the same problems, but as far as I'm aware there's not been any affirmative consent proposals that don't suffer from either being unenforceable, redundant, or awkward and dangerous.

And honestly, Antonio, you're smarter than "Well maybe all of those proposals are terrible but that doesn't mean every single one of these laws are bad! You don't know that!" Okay, make some sort of affirmative consent law for us that isn't either:
1. Vague.
2. Unenforceable.
3. Placing the burden of proof on the accused.
4. The same as current consent law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now who's strawmanning?

The crux of these affirmative consent proposals demand explicit, stated consent for any activity of a remotely sexual nature and any elevation thereof all the way to the real deal. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where harmless incidents get people thrown in jail. The only way you can think that's okay is if you're using the same logic as law and order conservatives.

I mean, when I see stuff like this or this I don't even think it's much of a stretch anymore to say these people expect really bizarre behavior from people for normal intimate interaction. Those are literally "consent contracts." Skits like this aren't even an exaggeration for some people anymore.

What I find so baffling is why these activists don't empower people to just say no. It's like these people are trying to set up the most dangerous game of Simon Says ever, creating some obtuse set of standards where the burden is on the initiator, instead of just encouraging both people to make the boundaries clear beforehand.

The idea of individuals who have been together for years and have developed an innate understanding of each other still needing the government to impose on them a series of permission requests for kissing or taking off each others shirt is a joke. Or it would be, if some people didn't actually think that's how people should behave. Sorry, Simon didn't Say "take off the shirt." That'll be 6-12 months.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2015, 10:46:54 AM »

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems

They maybe don't all have the same problems, but as far as I'm aware there's not been any affirmative consent proposals that don't suffer from either being unenforceable, redundant, or awkward and dangerous.

And honestly, Antonio, you're smarter than "Well maybe all of those proposals are terrible but that doesn't mean every single one of these laws are bad! You don't know that!" Okay, make some sort of affirmative consent law for us that isn't either:
1. Vague.
2. Unenforceable.
3. Placing the burden of proof on the accused.
4. The same as current consent law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now who's strawmanning?

The crux of these affirmative consent proposals demand explicit, stated consent for any activity of a remotely sexual nature and any elevation thereof all the way to the real deal. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where harmless incidents get people thrown in jail. The only way you can think that's okay is if you're using the same logic as law and order conservatives.

I mean, when I see stuff like this or this I don't even think it's much of a stretch anymore to say these people expect really bizarre behavior from people for normal intimate interaction. Those are literally "consent contracts." Skits like this aren't even an exaggeration for some people anymore.

What I find so baffling is why these activists don't empower people to just say no. It's like these people are trying to set up the most dangerous game of Simon Says ever, creating some obtuse set of standards where the burden is on the initiator, instead of just encouraging both people to make the boundaries clear beforehand.

The idea of individuals who have been together for years and have developed an innate understanding still needing the government to impose on them a series of permission requests for kissing or taking off each others shirt is a joke. Or it would be, if some people didn't actually think that's how people should behave. Sorry, Simon didn't Say "take off the shirt." That'll be 6-12 months.

Plus being listed on a sex offender registry for life, not being able to get a job that pays more than $7.25 an hour because of it, being stigmatized forever because of it, etc, etc.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2015, 10:50:09 AM »

Wanted to post this as an edit and may as well make it a separate post at this point:

The thing is here, I don't even necessarily disagree with the idea. These standards should be up to individuals to determine with their partners, and obviously we should be encouraging people to be super duper sure in their sexual encounters, particularly early in life, and educating people on what is and isn't over the line. I just don't think you accomplish that under threat of imprisonment, you accomplish that with sexual education. Awareness campaigns. Informal stuff. It can be far more effective.

If, say, Madeline wants her sexual encounters to be very cautious, and likes to constantly communicate permission checks or what-have-you, I don't want that to be taken away from her. If TNF likes his partners to ambush and f**k the s**t out of him, I don't want to take that away from him either. I want people to communicate their own personal etiquette with their partners instead of the government defining that etiquette. The only way the state should be interfering is if someone wanted it to stop, said no, and the other person didn't stop. Lock those people up.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2015, 01:08:33 PM »

ingemann, before I decide how much of an colossal jackass I think you are, I have to ask: What group of people, exactly, is it who you're referring to as 'asbergers'?

TRIGGERED.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2015, 01:26:21 PM »

"Affirmative consent" doesn't mean that you have to ask for permission in every single step of the process. It's simply the notion that, when a person wants to f**k another person, he/she should state his/her intention and ask said person for her/his assent. It's really not that hard for a normal human being. You can ask the way you want, and the answer can be in whatever form you want (as long as it is actually affirmative). I have no idea why you're all bent on making it look like some sort of insane thing.



Here are some quotes from this very thread:

Buhbut TNF!  How will I know when it's okay to unhook those thingies on a girl's bra unless a signed contract from the University of Berkeley Women's Studies Department head tells me?!

Clearly the answer is requiring a notary.

I would suggest a compromise that conservative, college feminists and asbergers could be happy about; Let's ban extramarital sex. This is a truly Solomonic solution. The college feminist can declare all sex in college for rape, the conservatives can defend marriage and tradition and the asbergers can get clear legal contracts into people's sexual lives. Everyone are happy.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2015, 01:44:15 PM »

"Affirmative consent" doesn't mean that you have to ask for permission in every single step of the process. It's simply the notion that, when a person wants to f**k another person, he/she should state his/her intention and ask said person for her/his assent. It's really not that hard for a normal human being. You can ask the way you want, and the answer can be in whatever form you want (as long as it is actually affirmative). I have no idea why you're all bent on making it look like some sort of insane thing.



Here are some quotes from this very thread:

Buhbut TNF!  How will I know when it's okay to unhook those thingies on a girl's bra unless a signed contract from the University of Berkeley Women's Studies Department head tells me?!

Clearly the answer is requiring a notary.

I would suggest a compromise that conservative, college feminists and asbergers could be happy about; Let's ban extramarital sex. This is a truly Solomonic solution. The college feminist can declare all sex in college for rape, the conservatives can defend marriage and tradition and the asbergers can get clear legal contracts into people's sexual lives. Everyone are happy.

You literally just said "ACLs don't mean asking for permission every step of the way, they mean [paraphrased version that literally means the exact same thing as asking for permission every step of the way]"
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2015, 02:00:06 PM »

Antonio, if I said to you "Can I f**k you?" and you said yes, congratulations, you just consented to being f**ked. We're good on that front. But these laws, along with the groups they're coming from, explicitly say that consenting to one thing doesn't consent to anything else, and the process of consent requires an explicit affirmative statement. If I tried kissing you during this process, I just committed a crime according to the law because I did not stop and acquire consent before doing so. In practice, according to these laws (and these activists especially) it absolutely does mean needing to ask about each and every thing. You could sue over anything and the question to the accused would be "Did you request stated affirmative consent before ____?" and if the answer is no, congratulations, your life is ruined.
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2015, 02:02:23 PM »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 16, 2015, 02:08:11 PM »

Normal human beings do not sue people because they did not expressly consent for each and every step of sex-having, jesus christ how sheltered were you as a kid
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2015, 02:09:42 PM »

Normal human beings do not sue people because they did not expressly consent for each and every step of sex-having, jesus christ how sheltered were you as a kid

What is the purpose of these laws over existing law, then, if not to increase the strictness of what consent means?

I'm pretty sure the sheltered individuals are the ones asking for these laws.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2015, 02:23:00 PM »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2015, 02:26:48 PM »

Antonio, if I said to you "Can I f**k you?" and you said yes, congratulations, you just consented to being f**ked. We're good on that front. But these laws, along with the groups they're coming from, explicitly say that consenting to one thing doesn't consent to anything else, and the process of consent requires an explicit affirmative statement. If I tried kissing you during this process, I just committed a crime according to the law because I did not stop and acquire consent before doing so. In practice, according to these laws (and these activists especially) it absolutely does mean needing to ask about each and every thing. You could sue over anything and the question to the accused would be "Did you request stated affirmative consent before ____?" and if the answer is no, congratulations, your life is ruined.

The only relevant step is when you go from making out to engaging in actual sexual activity. I get that there are some ambiguous cases, but generally it's a rather easy distinction to make. I haven't read the exact text of that law, but I'm pretty sure the interpretation you are giving of it is excessive. No court would seriously rule that the lack of affirmative consent to a specific action following affirmative consent to sex in general constitutes rape.
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2015, 02:29:11 PM »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.
No, they don't, but they'll probably say something because THAT IS HOW NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS FUNCTION!
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2015, 02:37:25 PM »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.

Which is why we should be encouraging people to be fearless enough to say no, which activists think is too victim-blamey.

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.
No, they don't, but they'll probably say something because THAT IS HOW NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS FUNCTION!

Normal human beings don't stop and request permission for every little act, either, which isn't a great pitch for these laws. We intuit each others responses, we communicate with body language, we return a kiss when kissed if we want it, etc. If you've been with someone long enough you also build enough expectation and understanding of the other.

I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2015, 02:38:00 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2015, 02:39:59 PM by Famous Mortimer »

I'm fairly sure you can just say "Should I grab a condom" or something

What if someone wants to withdraw consent in the middle of sex though? Under these laws, they do not have tell the other partner. The only way to be sure is to check in every 2 minutes.
No, they don't, but they'll probably say something because THAT IS HOW NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS FUNCTION!

Again, yes, they do. You literally do not know the content of the laws you are defending. Look at the name "affirmative consent" It means consent can only be granted by signaling in the affirmative. Not actively signaling consent, even if you did signal consent 2 minutes prior (because consent should be able to withdrawn under any law) does not count as continued consent. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of these laws is that "No means no" wasn't enough. These laws make it so that the person claiming rape does not have  to say "no" even if they said "yes" prior. That is the entire reason they exist.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2015, 02:42:12 PM »

I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.

Because there are many of women who were raped but didn't explicitly say "no". These kind of cases should lead to convictions. You should have to ask someone and get their full, unambiguous consent before you have sex with them. It's really not so hard to understand.
Logged
The Last Northerner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 503


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2015, 03:01:12 PM »

I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.

Because there are many of women who were raped but didn't explicitly say "no". These kind of cases should lead to convictions. You should have to ask someone and get their full, unambiguous consent before you have sex with them. It's really not so hard to understand.

So your argument is basically "It's better for an innocent person to go to jail than a guilty one to walk free?"
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2015, 03:15:29 PM »

I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.

Because there are many of women who were raped but didn't explicitly say "no". These kind of cases should lead to convictions. You should have to ask someone and get their full, unambiguous consent before you have sex with them. It's really not so hard to understand.

So your argument is basically "It's better for an innocent person to go to jail than a guilty one to walk free?"

I'm saying that I trust the courts to make the common sense distinction between rape and regular sexual activity. In the case you missed it, the police and judicial system is overwhelmingly biased in favor of defendants in rape cases, and any law won't change that.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2015, 03:25:54 PM »

You trust courts that regularly administer the death penalty to innocent people to make the right call when it comes to determining whether or not consent was given during intercourse?

Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2015, 03:31:51 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2015, 03:34:14 PM by Marokai Besieged »

I mean, in this entire conversation, Antonio's response above included, I've yet to see exactly why you would prefer these laws over present consent law when your vision of consent law isn't any different than what presently exists. These laws are pushed in response to a perceived epidemic of rape and sexual abuse on campuses (how nice that the non-college educated don't matter as much) for the purpose of making consent have a stricter definition and by extension result in easier to obtain convictions. There's no other purpose than that. Denying that is disingenuous.

Because there are many of women who were raped but didn't explicitly say "no". These kind of cases should lead to convictions. You should have to ask someone and get their full, unambiguous consent before you have sex with them. It's really not so hard to understand.

It is already law that it's not consent just because the person didn't explicitly say no, or declined to physically resist.

These are the California and New York affirmative consent laws. They place much, much more burden on the accused. Because that is the goal. To make it easier to convict the accused.

Here's something that can be held against you under the California law: "The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented." (That really dismantles gender roles, doesn't it? "Men, make sure the women are okay!")

The New York law states that "consent may be withdrawn at any time" and obviously "when consent is withdrawn, sexual activity must stop." Makes sense, but how am I supposed to know? I have to keep asking. There's no other way to know.

On the face of it there's obviously a sensible interpretation. Should someone make sure the other is consenting? Yeah that's obviously reasonable. Should sex stop whenever consent is withdrawn? Clearly, yes. But those black/white interpretations are already in law. How do you determine when consent is withdrawn, without continuously asking, if it can be withdrawn at every time and the other individual is under no legal obligation to say so? Especially since consent must be required for every aspect of the encounter and no other act implies consent for another. That's vague. That's a problem. And in the hands of the wrong judge, innocent people could be put away. And many feminists are okay with that for the greater good.

You trust courts that regularly administer the death penalty to innocent people to make the right call when it comes to determining whether or not consent was given during intercourse?

Yeah, this is just straight-up naive. You know he wouldn't trust the courts on any number of other issues, but this is the one where he magically does. How convenient.

Especially since he already clearly doesn't trust the courts to make the distinction between rape and not-rape. If that was the case there wouldn't be an outcry for these laws in the first place. It just doesn't make sense.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2015, 04:01:11 PM »

It is a fact that the judicial system puts a very high burden of proof on rape victims, and systematically gives the benefit of any doubt (whether reasonable or not) on the defendants. Rape is one of the crimes (if not the crime) for which someone is most likely to get away. And that certainly won't change much even with affirmative consent laws. But if they can help even in a couple of cases where obvious rapists get away on the basis of the "she didn't say no" defense, that's enough for me to enthusiastically support them.

As for people falsely convicted for rape, I'm sure they exist, and it's absolutely awful. I consider wrongful convictions to be the most horrible injustices in developed societies, and I have been personally affected at an emotional level by some of the most high-profile cases. Still, it's ridiculous to assume that false convictions for rape are more common than they are for any other crime, or that a slight wording in the statutes would make any difference is this.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2015, 09:20:30 PM »

It is a fact that the judicial system puts a very high burden of proof on rape victims...

This is, after all, a US political forum.  Certainly it welcomes and encourages foreigners and their ideological views, but you have to remember that--for all our flaws--we still hold the value that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and not with the defense.  You have to look a little beyond your Napoleonic Code of Justice to truly understand this.  Belittle it if you want, but at least try to understand it.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
  --William Blackstone, 1760  (not an American)

I vote against.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 14 queries.