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 …
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.