"Yes means yes" law

[Jazzy]

A presidential task force found that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted during college.

The government is investigating how dozens of schools handle sexual assault complaints.

Now, the California legislature has sent the governor the first law of its kind designed to reduce assaults.

It's called the "yes means yes" law.

University of California, Los Angeles senior Savanah Badalich is an advocate for the proposed law. She says she learned "no" is not enough when she was raped by a fellow student.

"I had said 'no' numerous times. But after a while, I just stopped saying anything at all," said Badalich. "I don't think had I said no nine times versus the eight times that I did, it would have made a difference, so I just stopped talking. And that could technically be used against me without this affirmative consent bill."

The California bill is unique because it requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement" before students have sex. The legislation also says a "lack of resistance or silence cannot be interpreted as a yes."

Ultimately, whether it's "yes means yes" or "no means no," it's still going to be a he said-she said. Badalich said that's always going to be a concern, "but what I can say is, if a survivor goes into a hearing committee and says 'I was so scared I didn't say anything at all,' before affirmative consent, that means that you could have been consenting."

If the measure passes, it would apply to California colleges and universities receiving state financial aid.

Read more

Steve Meister, a defense attorney specializing in sexual assault cases, thinks the proposed law is confusing and will make little difference.

Do you agree or disagree that this proposed law is confusing and will make little difference? Please explain your choice.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Wont change a damn thing. If someone rapes another person, castrate them. That'll learn em.

 

[DrLeftover]

Rape is the only crime where the victim can decide sometime later that a crime was committed.

Even if 'she' consented last night, in front of witnesses. If she has an attack of conscience the next day, she can report the act, say she was influenced to go through with it, and it will be prosecuted as a sexual assault. At which point, it will be her word against his. And we all know that all men are potential rapists.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

It doesn't do much to help victims who have already been assaulted. It won't matter if the perpetrator is a violent sex offender and putting it to use in consensual sex scenarios (as is more likely the case in college with acquaintance rape) is not good either because it depends on the victim's subjective definition of consent. If the victim changes that definition because of the circumstances, then the entire case is compromised.