Even survivor advocate deems not "really feasible to enforce via legislation" a standard enforced via legislation--though only for college students--in CA, CT, NY. https://twitter.com/abbyhonold/status/952591064904368128 …
"yes means yes" is at least an attempt to provide an intuitive standard regular people can use that explains why intoxication changes the rules. "no means no" does not have that intuitive effect.
-
-
No problem w/this as an ideal. But a legal standard whose *legislative sponsor* responded "your guess is as good as mine" when asked how an accused student could prove his innocence is a troubling one.https://www.thefire.org/california-sb-967-supporters-ignore-due-process-concerns/ …
-
What's a good standard that is also intuitive enough for people to use productively in the moment? The answer should cover "intoxication means no"
-
In general, has to be a convincing reason (it seems to me) not to use standards laid down for all in state law. While a handful of colleges have done so, no state holds intox=no (which would be a very slippery standard).
-
Usually the state-law standards involve consent no?
-
All do, yes. But they define automatic lack of consent as incapacitation, not intoxication (in & of itself).
-
Isn't "yes means yes", at least as an intuition, about getting clear consent?
-
Theoretically. But state aff. consent laws (though only for college students) allow non-verbal consent (which removes much of the clarity). Major effect is to shift burden of proof to accused.
-
Is it true that people often claim they believed they felt they had consent when objectively they didn't? (including cases where people truly did believe it?)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.